ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [IAB] Last Call: <draft-iab-2870bis-01.txt> (DNS Root Name Service Protocol and Deployment Requirements) to Best Current Practice

2015-03-06 06:02:07
jari(_dot_)arkko(_at_)piuha(_dot_)net:
Hi Paul,

and thanks for your review.

The requirements in Section 2 should be clearly stated as being
appropriate only for the authoritative name service. The last bullet
says this, but the first bullet says "MUST implement core DNS
[RFC1035] and clarifications to the DNS [RFC2181]." That could be
interpreted as saying that the root name service must follow all the
rules of RFC 1035, not just those that apply to authoritative name
servers, and there are a bunch that should not be required. Consider
changing that sentence fragment to "MUST implement core DNS
[RFC1035] and clarifications to the DNS [RFC2181], as an
authoritative name service”.

I think this seems reasonable. Marc?

(Stepping in as "the other author".)

I agree it makes sense. I'm working on text for -03.

Another bullet in Section 2 may be problematic:
MUST generate checksums when sending UDP datagrams and MUST verify
checksums when receiving UDP datagrams containing a non-zero
checksum.
What happens if a root name server receives a UDP datagram with a
bad checksum? It fails verification, but then what? This sentence
*might* incorporate the following clarification, but I'm not sure if
it actually matches the intent.
MUST generate checksums when sending UDP datagrams, and MUST
ignore a received UDP datagram containing a non-zero checksum
when that checksum does not verify.
If that's not the intent, I'm not sure what "verify" means without a 
follow-on action.

I would not like to specify protocol in this document. It would be
best if one of the referenced documents already said this, and we
could simply add a reference. Do they?

I agree to keep protocol spec out of this document. The document should
only refer to other documents and say "these (parts of) documuments
SHOULD/MUST be followed".

If there are docs that specify what a host should do with such
"malchecksummed" packets, I'm happy to put a pointer in there. If not,
I'd rather avoid discussing it in this draft.

                                Cheers,
                                  /Liman
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
# Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc.               !  E-mail: liman(_at_)netnod(_dot_)se
# Senior Systems Specialist             !  Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12
# Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm   !  http://www.netnod.se/
#----------------------------------------------------------------------